Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Necessary evil" is nothing more than a cognitively dissonant prose which attempts to justify doing evil.
I would accept that definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I have little confidence in your ability tomake that assessment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Apparently not if what you mean and say doesn’t align with the dictionary.
This does not logically follow. It isnot a valid argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So I mean what I say I mean not what you would like me to mean. Until you understand that you will not be able to have any meaningful communication with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What evidence? The dictionary is not the final arbiter of my meaning even if you allow it to be the final arbiter of yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your goal is to attract those who believe they can engage with the inciting question no?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I need to go against your understanding of the dictionary because I have a meaning to communicate and I need the words to do so.
If the dictionary provides insufficient verbiage to differentiate the concepts I am trying to communicate than just accepting my preferred terms FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION would allow us to have any discussion whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why can’t “your meaning” conform to the dictionary’s?
Because it is insufficient to my needs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
correct terms
Non starter. Correct is subjective to a goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Oh i don't mind especially since people can rarely be counted on to agree with everyone else's definition or for every definition to remain the same in every context. It is almost necessary considering the kind of conversation this is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That was me suggesting the "best" argument I could have given as a Christian - I don't think any god can be justified as... just in our current universe. Especially as an anti-theist.
I am far more interested in your insights as an anti theist if that is how you self identify.
Plus - given some engagement could help this thread get some attention
I think you have misunderstood my goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then how could you expect to be understood if your just gonna go against the grain?
If that is what I am doing I expect to be understood by explicitly addressing what I mean when I use a term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That doesn’t answer my question, I asked you what is the final arbiter of meaning not what is a dictionary.
The person who is talking/writing is the final arbiter of their own meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What is the opposite of tree? What is the opposite of mathematics? What is the opposite of the color blue?
I find your reasoning unconvincing unless there is an opposing force to the color blue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
you CLEARLY have no idea what you’re talking about
I don't think you understand how to make or evaluate valud arguments to such a degree that you can reliably make this observation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
different from the dictionary,
The dictionary is not the final arbiter of meaning in fact dictionaries can only describe popular usage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Be that as it may when I use the terms there is a difference. Therefore if you are unwilling to understand that difference even just for the purposes of our conversations you will be unable to understand me. Which is a shame since I am being so clear on the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
By making no choice, we remain on the fence, or, by another metaphor, tread water, or worse, allow the current to take us from where we desire to be,
These are all defacto choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do you really want to get into this valid/sound debacle again?
Not if you are unwilling to understand the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
A baby lacks the vocabulary to discuss immunology with a doctor. This does not mean that the doctor has no over arching plan which justifies inflicting pain on the baby.
Which makes any discussion of virology between babies necessarily nonproductive. A baby would perceive a "bad" shot no differently than a "good" shot therefore it is unreasonable for any baby to claim to another baby that the shots they were receiving were for a good purpose.
Both answers are predicated on faith. Neither can be proven.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Excellent then you know that if you cannot separate a valid argument from an invalid argument and you cannot separate a valid and sound argument from one which is in fact only valid you will by necessity be unable to evaluate the arguments of other's effectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The only necessary evil I am aware of is evil, itself. There must be opposition in all things, so, that there is righteousness means evil must exist to oppose it.
While this may seem intuitive it is actually a non sequitur. I have no reason to think that a necessary opposite or necessary opposition exists for all things or even just all concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Seems like a structurally valid argument that doesn't overstate your epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I think you meant Dunning–Kruger effect.
I did despite my struggles with spellcheck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Free agency is not a finite gift. Our reaction to it, however, will ultimately change to always making correct choices.
Please explain the detectable and practical difference between necessarily making the "correct" choice and not actually exercising any choice whatever? Your free will sounds very like no freedom to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
1. Unsatisfying. A plan we cannot comprehend or ask the planner questions about directly is indistinguishable from no plan whatever. I feel anything beyond human epistemology is not a good basis for any sound argument.
2 more satisfying as at least some actual goal is being proposed but also beyond our epistemology and so it gives us no basis for sound argument.
Also satisfaction will vary between users.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you're saying that the free will argument isn't one used by the popular Christian?
No. I am saying that it is immaterial if it is not YOUR argument. I would be much more interested in YOUR ACTUAL argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You are not using necessary in the same context which I am. I mean something which is necessary to the "greater good" whatever you consider that to be.
Your example would only be relevant if pooping where preventable(without causing bodily harm) and we chose to allow them to continue. In that case you would still have to defend the necessity of poops.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Perhaps killing someone in self defense or a soldier killing an enemy during war.
You are the first to offer a serious attempt at an answer and I appreciate that but you don't say why that is evil or necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Theweakeredge
Thank you both for building strawmen for us to tear down together but I think I will just stick to discussing actual arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Ok in that case what practical good (like a shot) dies suffering bring about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I am also aware that most people who bring children into the world do it knowing full well the child will suffer at some points in life. And we love them, but do it anyway. Why?
Because we are not the author of suffering. If it were up to us our children would not suffer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
God allows our free agency,
Does this hypothetical god allow us free agency in heaven?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
For an evil that is necessary, you’ll need to get real abstract.Evil is a subjective/intersubjective description. It’s a weighted word of what we consider immoral.
Well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It is necessary because in many cases, a new embryo will have more or fewer than the 23 chromosome pairs it’s meant to have. “It’s nature’s mechanism to miscarry those embryos, which are not destined to develop into a healthy fetus.
You are not using necessary in the same context which I am. I mean something which is necessary to the "greater good" whatever you consider that to be.
Your example would only be relevant if miscarriages where preventable (birth deffexts were curable) and we chose to allow them to continue. In that case you would still have to defend their necessity.
Created:
Posted in:
Undeniably many people suffer and it appears to be a given that some people suffer in ways they do not necessarilly deserve. Just as clearly not all suffering is the direct result of human actions.
That in mind and most especially if you believe in some god(s) that can be defined as both all powerful and also loves us all how do you resolve the problem of suffering?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I have my moments, don’t say anything stupid and you’ll probably see that side more often.
Your implied ad hominem is less amusing. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of logical debate and argument structure before you try to cast aspersions upon the logic or arguments of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
in excess to the benefit received by any.
This seems an imprecise metric.
Does this mean it is not evil to willfully inflict excessive harm so long as at least one person benefits sufficiently?
Or perhaps to willfully inflict excessive harm to an individual or small group that as long as enough people benefit?
If slavery benefits enough slave owners to a high enough degree does that effect the essential evil that comes from the harm slavery does to the enslaved?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you believe that welcome you to stay and prove anyone who thinks they have an example of a necessary evil wrong.
I myself do not really think "evil" is a particularly good term I only chose the word because of the popular colloquialism. I prefer immoral or unethical personally and of course I'm not sure you could make those distinctions without some goal or purpose (whether explicit or implicit) to use as a standard.
I myself do not really think "evil" is a particularly good term I only chose the word because of the popular colloquialism. I prefer immoral or unethical personally and of course I'm not sure you could make those distinctions without some goal or purpose (whether explicit or implicit) to use as a standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Necessary: required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential.
Created:
Posted in:
Please give an example of something you think is a necessary evil along with exactly what makes it evil and why it is nevertheless necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
@Wagyu
you can't have objective morality
You cant have an objective standard. Once a standard is chosen however we can make objective statements about it. Harris has merely chosen an arbitrary standard and there is nothing unusual about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Animals show (varying) degrees of altruism and a sense of fairness. Humans have just evolved more complex communication and seem to have more sophisticated thought processes.
Your dog must still learn to "behave".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Humans are also animals and also do instinct. In any case I am no longer endorsing this argument in this form. It is a tool of tribalism and that is not my personal moral standard.
Created: